The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
On March 18, 2010, Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class settlement was granted by this Court based upon the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Adler. [Doc. No. 29.] Following preliminary approval, Notice of the proposed Settlement was provided in the manner described in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Settlement Agreement.
(See Christman Decl. at ¶3 [Doc. No. 32].) Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the Settlement in accordance with the Order Re: Preliminary Approval.
On Monday, November 1, 2010, the Court held a hearing concerning the final approval of the settlement, as scheduled in its order of March 18, 2010. Due and adequate notice having been given to the Class as required in said order, there being no objections to the Settlement by any class member, and the Court having considered all papers filed and proceedings conducted in this action and otherwise being fully informed and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: Legal Standard:
1. Under Rule 23(e), the Court may approve a class settlement only upon finding that it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). To determine whether a proposed settlement meets these standards, the Court must evaluate a number of factors, including:
(1) the strength of the plaintiffs' case;
(2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation;
(3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial;
(4) the amount offered in settlement;
(5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings;
(6) the experience and views of counsel;
(7) the presence of a governmental participant; and
(8) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see also Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). These factors are not exclusive, and in some circumstances, one factor may deserve more weight than others or alone may even prove to be determinative. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982); Nat'l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525-26 (C.D. Cal. 2004). In addition, the settlement may not be the product of collusion among the negotiating ...